Topic: AOS, Oldhammer, greenskins, and the march of progress

[Old Stonebeard]

Branching off from the Dominion thread...

Actually, I am not a huge fan of that either. it looks like saturday morning cartoons. I mean how the world was captured in the 6th edition era, or Mordheim. Grimdark. Dirty. I think its the more preferred way other fans here view the Old World.

Ok yes the early early editions are pretty gritty too. But I haven’t looked into all of them to know for sure. I mean 4th and 5th edition appear very cartoony to me. Almost cliche. It’s why I stayed away from WFB. Then Mordheim and 6th came along and started sparking my interest. Granted it took me a long time to jump on board.

Not sure if I'm interpreting KTG correctly or not ... perhaps KTG prefers the art work more along the lines of what we saw with things like the early WFRPing material was like ... grim and dirty.  Or maybe what was seen on the 6th Edition Empire Battalion box set (or whatever that was called).

So, what I'm hearing is that many of the, shall we say, "AOS begrudging" voices on W-E and in the wider remnant WHFB community are lamenting the loss of a "gritty low fantasy" aesthetic that truthfully only existed between 6th and early 8th edition. 6th was released in 2000, and 8th was released in 2010, with the End Times occurring in 2015.

What fascinates me is that 6th was as big a jump in aesthetic- both in the aesthetics of model design and artwork- as AOS has been from 8th Ed. Let's take a microcosm as an example (and this is far from the most egregious jump in design from this period), and touch on the Dark Elf Corsair.

4th Edition art:


6th Edition art:


4th Edition metals:


6th Edition metals:


Even now, I'm seeing people complain about AOS's post-2nd Ed art direction as becoming "too grimdark". What would fascinate me to know is, did 1st-5th Edition players feel that 6th Edition "ruined" WHFB? What makes that 2000-2010 period the "true" WHFB, and what's come before and after as silly nonsense?

The reason I bring this up is because, despite all the teeth-gnashing by "oldhammer" players, AOS 3rd Edition's Kruleboyz Orruks seem to harken back to classic WHFB Orcs.











I guess what I'm trying to say here is, it's all still Warhammer, and it makes me sad to see folks incessantly decry AOS over half a decade later because "why new thing not like old thing", when in fact old thing was once new thing that wasn't like old thing. Who's to say it wasn't, in fact, the 6th Edition aesthetic that ruined Warhammer?



Old Stonebeard

[Gankom]

I look forward to this thread going swell. But assuming general peacefulness I think it is a neat discussion about how people see warhammer.

[Old Stonebeard]

I think it is a neat discussion about how people see warhammer.

Same! I do not mean this to troll, but to provoke genuine dialogue 

In other news, I just placed a bid on a 4th Ed. O&G army book specifically so I can paint the Kruleboyz in 4th Ed. colors...

Old  Stonebeard

[S.O.F]

So, what I'm hearing is that many of the, shall we say, "AOS begrudging" voices on W-E and in the wider remnant WHFB community are lamenting the loss of a "gritty low fantasy" aesthetic that truthfully only existed between 6th and early 8th edition. 6th was released in 2000, and 8th was released in 2010, with the End Times occurring in 2015.

Well that isn't entirely truthful as your periodization omits the 3rd Edition. Now the 3rd Edition is no where near as unified in its aesthetic presentation as later editions but the elements of gritty low fantasy do have there birth there, particularly among human faction which were largely repurposed historical figure line. Game mechanics also play an important role as well being that the 3rd and 6th aimed more at traditional army from historical tabletop play feel rather than the extremes of hero based mechanics that the 4th and 5th edition play offered. Sure the time period is filled with all sorts of outlandish art but again the art by those of the low/gritty persuasion is just that, art. It is an appeal to an emotional response in the viewer not necessarily accurate representation of the "world".

In Western Art there have been cycles of various lengths, in which, the ideas of classical art, concerned with realistic representation, oscillate with  counter veiling periods, where imagery, symbolism, and emotion are far more important to the work. All of it being art doesn't mean one way is right or correct or that as one predates the other is thus the rightful form for presentation but that art is subjective and the viewers are the final arbiter of their own tastes and preferences. Claiming there is a proper Warhammer and that people must enjoy or embrace all of it is not productive or accurate. I really like rock as a music genre but there is no way in hell I'm listening to any of that arena rock bullshit of the 80's.

Miniature and Art comparison

In broad strokes, this representation does have some merit but in the context of this board, what with its human-centric nature it really misses the real issues many folks here have since the transition to the AoS. Which would be all the neutral/good human regiments and units we have gotten over the past half decade, lets have a look at them:

Archers
Chariots
Infantry musician

hmmmmm.

[KTG17]

Well, I am certainly no expert in WFB, I am still scraping the surface, but I have been aware of WFB for many years, as I did see the models and games while I was into Rogue Trader and 40k 2nd edition. 2nd Edition is pretty cartoony as well, and I played the hell out of it. At the time, I thought the rank blocks I saw in WFB was boring, and many of the models to be kind of silly, like



The collar, sword.



The bright colors. I guess you could paint them however you wanted, but the still come across as cartoony to me. It was one of the major reasons I stayed away. And its not like all the models of this time period were bad. There were some really nice metal minis I still like today. Just the atmosphere I felt they were capturing just didn't work for me.

I felt all that changed when I discovered Mordheim and then the 6th Ed Rulebook. One picture really stuck out to me, and that was the empire troops taking on the River Trolls.

(I tried to post the photo here but the link wont work. Its the one here https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/River_Trolls with the River Trolls vs the Empire Troops)

It was this single pic that started changing my mind out WFB. I am still amazed by it. I feel the desperation, struggle, violence, darkness, filth, all in one pic, and this feels like the desperate world Warhammer resides in. Or should reside in, to me.

Why does that make a difference to me? I am not sure. Everyone is free to paint minis however they want. But I look to this stuff for inspiration. I have to imagine what its like for those empire soldiers too, and being grounded in some historical sense as far as the look and feel of the armor and equipment, I can imagine the stakes a little more. When I see the stuff in Sigmar, everything looking like its right off the assembly line in perfect condition, its just too far beyond what I feel is realistic and I am not as interested. And I say this about other fantasy settings as well, not just Sigmar.

No amount of literature is going to make me feel how desperate the struggle is when everyone looks perfect. The Empire, to me, was a pretty tough place to live, and I feel the uniforms, equipment, gear, and clothing all should reflect that. Worn so to speak. Used. Sigmar isn't like that. At least not what I have seen.

I do recognize that the Stormcasts are pretty cool in some ways. I feel the masks are great, but not for front line troops. Maybe a bodyguard unit or something. I don't know the lore on who is making all that equipment either, but everything in the old world looks like it was made by a blacksmith, while Sigmar makes me feel its all magical.

So I do look to the art in the books of the time for inspiration, and its what sells me on the mood, no matter what the models are doing. I think GW nailed it out of the park with Mordheim in particular, and 6th that followed. It does seem by 8th things were going a little over the top again, kinda flashy, but still a close derivative to 6th than earlier.

BTW, if I had friends who were old school WFB vets and had 4-5th edition armies, I would do one too for the hell of it.

[KTG17]

Oh I would also like to confuse things even more and say despite the lack of appreciation I have for the more cartoonish styles of WFB, not only am I a rabid fan of, and also consider it to be one of the greatest games ever made, is Man O’ War, and it doesn’t get more cartoony than that. I absolutely love that game and have since it was released. But I never was able to take the appreciation I had for it and use it to get into WFB.

[Jmash]

Even now, I'm seeing people complain about AOS's post-2nd Ed art direction as becoming "too grimdark". What would fascinate me to know is, did 1st-5th Edition players feel that 6th Edition "ruined" WHFB? What makes that 2000-2010 period the "true" WHFB, and what's come before and after as silly nonsense?

For me it comes down to tangibility. I got into Warhammer around or maybe just before Mordheim era. The models and artwork prior to that in my experience were just a bit silly looking, lots of monopose, flat looking miniatures waving their arms and in fancy dress, art was very cartoonish, bright colours, big hairdos, glam-rock fantasy almost!

With Mordheim and the evolution of WFB & 40k at that point (forgive me I'm not great on what edition that would be), the emergence of 'grimdark' to me brought everything down to an almost believable level. The metal minis and art really started to peak at this point IMO; evil things started to look evil, regal things looked regal etc. factions really started to get refined styles, stances became more natural, no more 80's guitar solo power stance with a wizards staff sort of thing, the artwork mirrored these changes as well. The representation of battles moved away from the bright shiny cartoons of yesteryear and more towards how a battle might really be in real life... albeit with orcs, goblins, griffins, wizards etc. At this point it felt the most grounded to me and that's what I like.

I struggle with AoS not so much simply because of the aesthetic, more due to the underlying concept now that the setting has changed so radically and of course the aesthetic had to follow suit. I guess the beauty of Warhammer though is that it's always been open to interpretation, you could make things as dark, gritty and sinister as you wanted, or you could go tongue-in-cheek humour, glittery high fantasy or drab reality and this is still the case nowadays.

[Old Stonebeard]

Somebody on facebook made a meme observing basically the same thing:



Mind you, I am not knocking anybody who prefers the 6th Edition, Mordheim era Warhammer aesthetic. I discovered WHFB during 6th, and I absolutely adore the illustrations of Karl Kopinski, Adrian Smith and Dave Gallagher from that period. The more serious model ranges and color palettes that replaced 4th Edition's are absolutely an improvement as well.

What I am trying to say is, that 6th Edition aesthetic was as big a change to early WHFB as Age of Sigmar's more high-fantasy aesthetic has been compared to later WHFB, and that I cannot respect the opinion of "why new thing not like old thing!" when old thing wasn't like old thing, either. You can like what you like, but don't cite some brief period in WHFB history as a legitimization for your opinion that what I like is "bad".

Oh I would also like to confuse things even more and say despite the lack of appreciation I have for the more cartoonish styles of WFB, not only am I a rabid fan of, and also consider it to be one of the greatest games ever made, is Man O’ War, and it doesn’t get more cartoony than that. I absolutely love that game and have since it was released. But I never was able to take the appreciation I had for it and use it to get into WFB.

Duuude, I have a local friend with several MOW fleets I hope will provide them for an AOS event I'm planning this fall, pandemic notwithstanding. They're so silly they fit right in. Even Dreadfleet was definitely moving in AOS's high fantasy direction.

(I tried to post the photo here but the link wont work. Its the one here https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/River_Trolls with the River Trolls vs the Empire Troops)

It was this single pic that started changing my mind out WFB. I am still amazed by it. I feel the desperation, struggle, violence, darkness, filth, all in one pic, and this feels like the desperate world Warhammer resides in. Or should reside in, to me.

The photographer ruined the reference and I can't seem to find any more, but I think you might appreciate this 2004 Golden Demon entry:

I guess the beauty of Warhammer though is that it's always been open to interpretation, you could make things as dark, gritty and sinister as you wanted,

Old Stonebeard

[Jmash]

Case in point well proven and I have seen many more recent examples to boot. To clarify when I said 'Warhammer' I mean it as a whole entity incl. AoS, 40k and everything in between not referring specifically to WFB, the hobby in itself if you will is entirely open to interpretation and that's why so many people love it. There's something for everyone.

[Artobans Ghost]

Those SC are freakin awesome ☝️

[Jmash]

Seeing the new upcoming releases announced this weekend, especially the 'Sludgeraker Beast' and the 'Marshcrawla Sloggoth' I actually quite like the new direction these Kruleboyz have taken.

There's something quite unnerving about them, something sinister that the hulking Orruks never really had. Definitely leaning toward the ckunning and the menacing which I guess is what they were shooting for.

The hefty musclebound orks of old, across all versions of the hobby IMO were always kind of treated with an element of comic buffoonery (in the nicest possible meaning), like a football hooligan on steroids with cockney geezer accents. The Kruleboyz really look seriously evil in comparison.

[brr-icy]

My main issue with AoS isn't the aesthetic, it's it trying too hard to be like 40k, while deleting so much of what i enjoyed from 4th to 6th/early 7th before the books. I always hated playing 40k, reskinning it with fantasy models isn't going to change that.

I don't begrudge anyone playing it, but i'm not interested in anything past new models to use in 6th. TOW is probably going to be the same for me as well. I just don't have faith that they can make an interesting enough ruleset again to suck me back into a new edition.

My friend's kids love AoS, good on them, it's simple enough that they can learn, but so simple and quick that it doesn't feel worth setting the board up for to me. I like an hour of setting up with evening of gaming with blocks of troops and a few beers, not an evening of setting up for an hour of play. Warcry is the same for me, the setup to play ratio is too far in favour of setting up.

I do love some of the new models though, that Be'lakor model is amazing, just finished painting it. it's not fitting on the old base, but i will still use it.

If you ask the elitists what Oldhammer is, they're going to say it ended at 3rd wfb. I bug them by saying it ended when models began to be sculpted with proportions and skill.

[Captain Dob Van Dwi]

I know it is a bit late but I will chime in here.

I have mixed feelings about the new kruleboyz. On the one hand they are very cool what with their whole look and that, but I also feel as if they are too LotR. To me skiny orcs in Warhammer will always be cartoony, it just fits/clicks for me.

Beefy orcs will always be freakish (6th-8TH) in my mind.

Middle of the road orcs with always be 5th.

Idk. It just odd seeing orcs that are not quite skinny, not quite beefy but yet also somehow not being middle of the road bugs me.

[Kaptajn_Congoboy]

Going to Necro this one a bit too

The now-not-so-new Kruleboys infantry look great, a real callback to the days of Ruglud's Armoured Orcs, and a look for Orcs that actually makes them look menacing, something that has been missing from GW orcs since...well, the 90s.. The mounted models, many of the characters and monsters suffer under the general messy AOS aesthetic that has plagued GW ever since CAD was introduced to miniature design.

[GamesPoet]

An interesting point reguarding the use of computer sculpting.  There are folks that are doing a decent job, although such hasn't always been the case.  It is a different medium, and so I am sure it has its challenges, perhaps even limitations as well as strengths.

[Kaptajn_Congoboy]

Computer sculpting is, in general, a very good thing for model design. It makes the design process faster and enables you to do some very clever things, like mirroring parts of a model that should be symmetrical (this pops up in the weirdest places). it also enables carbon copying certain parts of a model (*cough* Space Marines) in the design process.

But it is as with all design; you need a good base for your work. And it is very tempting to add all kinds of overdetailing when you've got all those fishies floating around on your hard drive and don't have to sculpt them all by hand.

[GamesPoet]

Yep, definitely has its good points and bad.  Like so many things in life.

The temptation to over detail seems to be high, another god and bad thing.  Can stand painting an over detailed model.  I'm just interested in having a representation on the table top, not an exact copy of a real thing.

Or in the case of fantasy and sci-fi, a not so real thing.